As Terry has noted, the Archibishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, recently proposed a two-tier system of church membership in the Anglican Communion — the idea being that full and partial membership could save the Communion from schism. Anglican bishops in Nigeria responded this week. The Church of Nigeria is Africa’s largest Anglican church, with an estimated 17.5 million members, according to the BBC:
In their statement, posted on two websites, the Nigerian bishops commend Dr Williams’ idea as “brilliant as the heartbeat of a leader who wants to preserve the unity of the Church by accommodating every shred of opinion no matter how unbiblical”.
But they dispute whether the challenge is really to “fashion out a novel establishment that is elastic enough to accommodate all the extremes of the referred modes of expression of the same faith”.
“A cancerous lump in the body should be excised if it has defied every known cure,” they say.
“To attempt to condition the whole body to accommodate it will lead to the avoidable death of the patient.”
Instead Dr Williams should persuade churches that chose to “walk apart” to “return to the path”, say the bishops.
Here’s the entire response of the Nigerian bishops. It’s actually humorous to compare the words of the Episcopal Church’s leadership with those of the Nigerians. When you listen to Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori’s “mother Jesus” sermon and compare it to the Nigerian defense of orthodox doctrine, you find significantly different religious views.
But to the point of this blog, here’s what I’m wondering: The BBC did a great job of writing up this story about the Nigerian response. It provided background and a bit of forecasting, as British papers tend to do.
The Nigerians go for the postmodern jugular of the Episcopal Church (the Anglican Communion’s American branch). And yet that BBC story is the only one I found. The Nigerians call the Episcopal Church a cancer. That’s juicy enough for coverage, isn’t it? Seriously, what better hook are you going to get?
 | Posted at 1:43 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (29) |
July 9, 2006, at 3:14 pm
[…] Hat tip: Get Religion […]
July 9, 2006, at 4:37 pm
The ECUSA is up against the “Chili Problem.”
You can make chili without beans. You can make chili with ground beef instead of stew meat, you can even make chili without any meat (I had some great meatless chili in San Francisco). You can even make chili with jalapenos instead of chilie peppers, and if you are likely to get heartburn you can cut just the cumin and jalapenos out. If you are lactose intollerant you don’t have to have the traditonal cheese topping either. Chili is a very flexable thing, and I have even heard of people pouring it over rice and of abomination called “white bean chili”…. which would probably get you shot if you made it down here in Texas where I live. In any case though, push come to shove, you can normally make something that somebody will call chili that is acceptable to almost anybody.
But at some point, once you take out the beans and the meat and the chili powder and the peppers, and the cheese on top and the stewed tomatoes and you add pasta and oregano you wind up with something that is no longer “chili” but rather spagetti. Think Platonic Forms here.
So the ECUSA is pushing SOMETHING… and they wear Christian clothes, and they use Christian symbols and terms, and they sing traditonal Christian songs…but if what they are teaching can honestly and properly be called Christianity or not anymore is open to serious question.
July 9, 2006, at 7:37 pm
Mollie—a good observation. You would think that one branch of a Christian denomination calling another branch of that denomination a “cancer” would be worthy of quite a bit of news coverage—even some senationalist coverage. But if Americans catch onto the fact that outside the rich, pampered, spoiled brat western secular sandbox the rest of the world considers our moral direction a cancer many here might decide to join in the fight against that cancer. And those influential promoters of this cancer in the media can’t have that.
And of course where does that leave ecumenism between different churches. How far can sincere orthodox Christian believers in western countries go in “glad-handing” with purported Christians in their countries who the majority in their own worldwide church consider a cancer malignantly debasing all Christianity.
July 9, 2006, at 8:12 pm
Of course, it’s not the rest of the world. It’s the balance of power in the Anglican church, with Akinola as kingmaker, is centered in onie Continent. Canterbury is much closer to the TEC then Akinola and are becoming more frustrated by his antics (and the American Anglicans who are bankrolling him).
The Church of England just approved women Bishops; there have been female priests for a decade. Their stand on gays is much closer Schori’s then to Akinola, who supports improsonment of gays and those who advocate for them.
The question for Williams is whether the realizes that when Akinola talks about a “cancer,” he is also talking about Canterbury. And will Anglicans in England be willing to accept that their emphasis on social justice and equality is considered an illness but the man who wants to run the Anglican church?
July 9, 2006, at 9:10 pm
John— I have not seen so far that other cultures telling us America is corrupt, or cancerous, or the Great Satan, or whatever, has had much affect on how the majority of America views its moral direction.
If anything, I would think that coverage of this story could play in the Episcopal Church’s favor. The Episcopalians are willing to co-exist (on their terms, of course, but anyway), and the African Anglicans are not. I imagine that reads as rigid and extreme to an observer uninvested in the homosexuality wars.
July 9, 2006, at 9:13 pm
…will Anglicans in England be willing to accept that their emphasis on social justice and equality is considered an illness but the man who wants to run the Anglican church?
As I argued in a previous post, being “conservative” like Akinola is and emphasizing social justice aren’t mutually exclusive.
I would not be surprised in the least if Akinola and the other leaders of the Anglican Church in Africa in general, let alone Nigeria in particular, view the continuing north-south economic divide and the ill effects of the global economy through the lens of their faith—just as does the “conservative” Catholic bishops and cardinals from Africa (e.g., Nigerian Cardinal Arinze).
I think that a lot of people in the West, including reporters and editors in the MSM, find it hard to understand how these areas of belief can be consistently held.
But, for them, “social justice” has a very narrow focus—usually limited to the topics that they themselves find important, forgetting a wider of view of reality.
In any case, if we go back to numbers, I suspect that there are even fewer regularly practicing Anglicans in England than there are in the United States.
July 9, 2006, at 9:46 pm
I did read this somewhere, but I guess it must have been the BBC.
Anyway, in my book, it was worth being picked up on rhetorical strength alone—those African bishops know how to write, whatever else their merits.
July 9, 2006, at 9:50 pm
Dog bites man, friends.
Several African primates have been using maximum strength rhetoric against ECUSA for years. I recall the word “Satanic” in one release not too long ago. So while it continues to be significant that these large members of the AC keep whacking ECUSA and the AoC, it’s really not major new news. When the rhetoric becomes action, wake me up. Sez I.
July 9, 2006, at 11:19 pm
Liz B. My point is that the one-way media doesn’t want people in our society giving credence to the witness and moral or spiritual insight of people living in other cultures UNLESS it goes along with a certain liberal world-view.
How many stories have you seen about how our economic policies—especially oil related—make us hated around the world. Plenty, I bet. But how many stories have you seen of the polls which show that, for example,in many of the former Iron Curtain countries fear of becoming as morally decadent as the West has helped keep communism percolating in that part of the world. And how much analysis has been provided in the media looking at how our world-wide media promotion of moral decadence has helped fuel “The Great Satan” image of us in the Islamic world??
Big media likes to ignore this side of international issues because news media organizations are married to entertainment media organizations—and nothing sells like sex and violence—even as it makes huge numbers of others in those media consumer countries hate the creators and producers of such.
July 9, 2006, at 11:49 pm
The Larry Rasczak’s “chili analogy†is apt. (& I’d sure like some of his recipes!) But it’s not quite accurate.
Spaghetti isn’t chili, but it still nourishes. In Leviticus 20, God forbids several “abominable deedsâ€. Homosexual practice (20:13, cf Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9) is one and (e.g.) sex with animals is another. And then he says, “Or the land I’m bringing you into will vomit you out.†(Lv 20: 22) Apt language for such stomach-curdling practices!
And similar language, “Spew you out of my mouthâ€, is used in Revelation 3:16 to warn the Church at Laodicea, which was wealthy, but “lukewarm†in faith. ECUSA now has “Eucharists†celebrated by openly Lesbian priestesses. Glad I’m an R.C. now!
July 10, 2006, at 12:19 am
I wonder if the media could shed more light on the context of the Nigerians’ comments by highlighting exactly what they face in their nation.
Nigerians like Akinola speak in stark terms probably because they face a very militant Muslim population in the northern part of Nigeria. To be seen as supporting homosexuality or condoning views by the radical Leftists who have taken over the ECUSA, they really risk life and limb.
If they’re seen as patsies of the Moral Left in the UK and USA, then that surely wouldn’t help their situation with their Muslim neighbors - or with their efforts to spread Christianity in the nation, or the region.
Muslim Imams could simply say “They are depraved, but we are moral.”
July 10, 2006, at 5:14 am
Yeah, Stephen. But why is that even relevant? Metaphysics? Ethics? Christianity? Islam? It’s all the meaningless. Or arbitrary. Or something.
Whatever. Let the ignorant hoi polloi profess what they will. A few agitated Nigerians? So what? Religion has nothing ultimately to do with culture or behavior. Not since Bultmann said it was stupid.
The tide of history is inevitably toward secular enlightenment. License and radical autonomy are irresistable! Just like global capital. I mean, I read about in Marx. Or Hegel or Nietzche. Maybe it was Foucault. No. Tom Freidman wrote it in the NY Times. Or someplace.
July 10, 2006, at 8:48 am
I agree Stephen that we don’t know enough about the Anglican church in Nigeria and Akinola in specific. While they may not want to be seen as “patsies of the Moral Left” it hasn’t stopped them from being the “patsies of the Elite Right.” I doubt there’s any reason to believe that Akinola is some closet liberal and he has been pretty willing to become the Elite Western Right’s henchman in the Anglican community.
July 10, 2006, at 9:17 am
“I agree Stephen that we don’t know enough about the Anglican church in Nigeria and Akinola in specific.”
Could that have anything to do with the fact England has nicer hotels, better theater, more tourist spots, dependable internet access, excellent gin, lots of nice resturants, and it is easy to put on the expense account?
Lets face it, you give a reporter a choice between spending a week in England doing an easy interview with polite people who will have press kits all typed up and ready; or having do research, to get shots, dig out the passport, and fly to Nigeria to talk to leaders of the Anglican Church in Africa…
Hey that second one sounds a lot like work!
July 10, 2006, at 10:21 am
You are right, Larry. BBC’s coverage of Africa is far-and-away the best of the English-speaking media because they have actual reporters and bureaus there. Except for the random reporter in Johannesburg or Cairo, most U.S. media don’t have reporters in Africa.
July 10, 2006, at 10:24 am
Excellent point about the need for bureau staff rather than having reporters sit at computers stateside.
July 10, 2006, at 10:30 am
Michael’s tirades against Nigerian Anglicans and Akinola in particular continue to smack of cultural bigotry and racism. Oh no, a black man who doesn’t toe the leftist, elitist line on *all* matters. My, my, we don’t really know anything about his stand on social issues, just that he’s a Traditionalist in his faith, but he is certainly a “patsy of the Elite right” (btw, just what the heck is that?).
Thanks, though, for pointing out what the rest of us Traditionalists have known for 30 years or more, that the cancer of Anglicanism is not simply manifested in the ECUSA, or Canada or New Zealand, but resides in Canterbury itself. However, I daresay the “Global South” is well aware of that and its pronouncements are intended as a warning bow shot for them as well.
July 10, 2006, at 10:45 am
If Akinola was white and European, I’d still find his efforts and policies distasteful (probably moreso). I’d like to know more about what he’s doing in Nigeria. All we really know about him are his blistering tirades, his poor record on women and gays in Nigeria, and the fact that he’s become the darling of conservative American Anglican elites.
July 10, 2006, at 11:40 am
“Poor record on women and gays”? That’s an interesting assertion. Care to elucidate?
July 10, 2006, at 1:11 pm
Do you, dear orthodox correspondents, read the papers, or just what you want to read, that which confirms your prejudices?
Earlier this year, Lydia Polgreen, the west Africa correspondent of the NYT, went to Nigeria and wrote about gay Anglicans there and the reaction of the church to them and to her reporting. Read it, oh careful consumers.
And as far as Akinola and the threats he and others might face from Muslims in their own country, certainly tolerance of gays makes evangelizing harder in Nigeria. But how exactly does it threaten their lives? Do you really think that the sectarian killings there have anything at all to do with stances on homosexuality? Projecting a bit of our own Western obsessions, are we not?
Finally, for those of you who see Akinola as your standard bearer for true Christianity, will you stand with his statements calling gays dogs and bastards? Is that your idea of Christian love? Have you even bothered to read those statements?
The best twist on all this of course is how all of you sit at computers and read the press and then complain about reporters sitting at their desks rather than getting out. Perfect!
July 10, 2006, at 1:17 pm
Richard,
Akinola’s statements about homosexuality are beyond that it is a sin. They are drenched in loathing. They are all over the web—try Thinking Anglicans—if you should care to see. He also wants to criminalize consensual gay relationships, and is enthusiastically backing legislation in Nigeria that would do just that?
Arent there other issues more pressing in Nigeria?
Could those of you who so respect him find his equally ardent statements against corruption in Nigeria, or backing vaccinations after the government stopped innoculations in some places and let polio return, or calling for interfaith understanding, or battling poverty, or arguing for more equitable sharing of oil revenues? I’d be most happy to read them, to understand this paragon of orthodox faith in action. I mean, how much does being gay have to do with anything in the daily lives of people in Nigeria?
July 10, 2006, at 2:22 pm
While busying himself with the issue of homosexuailty, women in Nigeria face stoning for adultery, genital mutilation, high levels of relationship violence, almost complete silence in decision-making and power, the ravages of HIV/AIDS. Yet, Akinola spends time on homosexuality when it comes up in government, but is silent on those issues facing women.
July 10, 2006, at 3:14 pm
women in Nigeria face stoning for adultery
In the Christian parts of the country, the Muslim parts, or both?
genital mutilation
Same question as above.
almost complete silence in decision-making and power
At home? At the level of government policy?
the ravages of HIV/AIDS
This only effects women?!? In other words, does he say nothing at all about the disease, or does he only mention it in the context of how it effects men?
As best as I can tell from following this thread, it is not at all clear where he stands on many of the social issues, or how much energy he is putting into trying to alleviate some of the suffering associated with them. Perhaps it is well past time to see what he and his church have done on these issues. More importantly, perhaps it is time for us in the West to try to understand what he thinks are the most pressing issues facing his church and his community.
July 10, 2006, at 3:24 pm
Todd, I’ve heard Akinola speak to likeminded Anglicans in the West. At those times, he never mentioned what he thinks are the most pressing issues in his country, what the fight over homosexuality is distracting him and his church from. It is all about leaving TEC over his notions of Biblical orthodoxy.
Surely, someone on this thread must have access to Lexis Nexis and can find all that Akinola says about what truly concerns him. Truly.
July 10, 2006, at 3:52 pm
The most ignorant statement made so far is the one prattling about the future belonging to “secular enlightenment.” How? Secularists endorse policies that are anti-life, anti-future. Homosexuality and abortion and determined artificial contraception make sure there is no future for without people there is no future. Even European secularists are getting panicky according to reports (but not enough to get rid of their anti-life attitudes and laws) because some estimates have Europe as Moslem in as few as 50 years. Where will secularism go when the ayatollahs and imams take on the freedoms we in the (former) Christian west take for granted??
July 10, 2006, at 5:12 pm
Oh please. Three years ago, ECUSA, that most arrogant of “Christian” churches, imposed its view of homosexual bishops on the rest of the Anglican world without so much as a by-your-leave. Homosexuals may supposedly face criminal charges in southern Nigeria but they face death in the Islamic north, something no Episcopal liberal has seen fit to condemn. And as for statements made by Dr. Akinola against corruption in Nigeria and other matters, I’ve found them on Google just about any time I looked. Liberal hypocrisy is an ugly thing.
July 10, 2006, at 6:24 pm
So if Akinola isn’t obsessed with the litany of “Social Justice” issues in his own nation - as Western liberals have rigidly defined that term in the USA and Europe - then he’s “ignoring” issues and is “distracted” by the moral issue of gay bishops, which is apparently nothing to be concerned about (again, according to Western liberals)?
Tell us again how that is NOT western cultural elitism?
July 10, 2006, at 6:31 pm
When you lobby the Nigerian legislature in support of imprisonment of gays and those who support them, you obviously believe you have some clout and it’s a significant issue. Yet, women face polgamy and genital mutilation and abuse and violence and Akinola says … nothing.
Using the bully pulpit assumes you can use it again. Thus, his silence is significant.
If the leader of the largest Christian church in Nigeria won’t speak out for the rights of women not to be stoned and face genital mutilatino, who will? It’s about his priorities, or more specifically, the priorities of American Anglican elites.
July 10, 2006, at 8:56 pm
[…] - GET RELIGION– “As Canterbury Turns: The center cannot hold” … (getreligion) […]